Are GMOs Actually Bad For You?

You've probably heard that GMOs are bad for you—turns out, that might not be true at all! Join Hank Green and learn what science has to say about the truth with GMOs in this new episode of SciShow!
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters -- we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Justin Ove, Chris Peters, John Szymakowski, Peso255, Fatima Iqbal, Justin Lentz, and David Campos.
----------

Or help support us by becoming our patron on Patreon:
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?

Sources:
GMO Salmon

How are GMOs Made

Glycophosphate / Monsanto

[wamsang]

As Kurzgesagt said, "much of the criticism of GMOs are actually criticisms of the corporations controlling our food supply"

[someoneinthecrowd]

I read in some comment who said that watermelons with seeds were impossible to find today. I've never seen a seedless watermelon in my life :O

[austinschaffer]

I'm glad y'all were able to admit when you reported on a bad study. That is one of the best reasons why I like this chanel.

[dawsonutterback]

I hate how the media and marketing industries rely on the ignorance of the average person on topics like this.... I love this channel... giving important knowledge to the world

[armouredskeptic]

Finally, Sci Show makes good and fixes the misinformation they spread on their old GMO vid.
Good job.

[BigRalphSmith]

It really seems like all those commenting here that are anti-GMO are desperately searching for a way to hold on to their prejudices. I don't understand that motivation.
Every talking point I've seen on the anti-GMO side all seem to be related not to actual GMO issues but instead to "possible future misuses" committed by less-than-scrupulous human beings.
Well, that's not a GMO problem, that's a human being problem.
Also, the evil business practices of Monsanto do not mean that GMO's are "bad", just the business decisions by a human business entity.
Folks, GMO's are here to stay, you've eaten them, your kids are eating them, and no one is keeling over in the streets from "GMO poisoning". Sorry. Not a thing and, if you really have some issue with GMO's, your going to have to come up with a better argument than "grunt-grunt, GMO bad, no GMO good".

[mollysullivan]

something that really rubs me the wrong way about this whole anti-GMO pro-organic movement is the amount of privilege that is required to be a loud proponent of it. not everyone can afford to eat only organic, non-GMO food and all of these people antagonizing the principle of these practices allow their privilege to blind them to the fact that they help put food on the tables of millions of less fortunate people.

[emberhermin]

I never believed GMO foods were unhealthy, but I learned in an environmental studies class that pesticide-resistance GMO crops had the issue of overusing pesticides (which can wreak havoc on the environment) because the plants can take it
They were very big on "Integrated Pest Management"
Then I found out about patented food 😔

[jannikheidemann]

In the end genetics is a tool.
If it's good or bad is determined by it's user.

[ScottFoust]

My fear with GMOs is of someone owning the copyright [patent] to my food. 

[powerm]

I am very happy that you finally addressed the mistakes that you made in your last GMO video; although I am a little disappointed that it took you over 2.5 years to do this. I think that this was a very balanced video, although you made a rather large mistake regarding contamination and people getting sued.

[jcortese]

I hadn't seen this before, and I'm glad you did it. I'm one of those people who isn't skeptical so much about GMOs as I am about putting that much power into the hands of corporations that have nothing in mind but their own bottom line. The technology itself is neutral.

[nolanthiessen]

Overall I've very much in favour of GMOs. However, I would like labeling to be mandatory for any GMO which includes genes from outside its own genus (or maybe family). If my wheat has some grass genes in it, that's cool. But if my wheat has genes from an eel, I would at least like to know about it.
I also feel that patent issues around GMOs are a bit one-sided. Ever since Food Inc, Monsanto has backed off of suing farmers for seeds blown into their field but just the fact that the law allows them to if they wish bothers me.

[GAMEDOG]

"If GMOs aren't bad, why wont you label them?!"
*Labels them*
"If GMOs aren't bad, why are there labels on them?!"

[bangboom]

Monsanto? Loathe. GMOs? Wonderful. 

The two terms are not interchangeable.

[marianhenderson]

Do I need a SciShow lab coat? No. Do I want a SciShow lab coat? More than you could fathom.

[socialist-strong]

I fucking wish the GMO debate was a front for a larger debate on placing power over food in a few companies. Most arguments I hear against this is "It's playing god" and "we don't know what could happen".

[jomejamojaime]

The biggest problem with GMOs is monopoly. Companies like Monsanto (basically only Monsanto) actively make sterile plants, for example "suicide corn", so they can force farmers to keep buying their seeds everytime they plant.
There should be more regulation on the development of GMOs, to keep companies from monopolizing the market (like they already did).
Of course this is hardly going to happen. Monsanto will keep their monopoly to the tragic, bitter, superplagued end. Natural selection will soon catch up to human selection, and when it happens we won't have many ways to save our production.

[amphibiousone]

I have earlier comments on this subject. I choose not to simply delete them, mostly because I didn't want it to be said that my voice had been muted. I started doing research on this subject, with the idea of gathering evidence to support my position. The short of it. I found no credible evidence that supported my former position. This is what I have discovered, in a very brief form.
Genetically Engineered Agriculture, is better and safer than any of our old tried and true methods. We get better far more predictable results. We are able to reliably keep desired traits and remove or mute, less desirable traits. For more that 10, 000 years we have been manipulating plants and animals, with the goal of encouraging traits we found desirable. This has been done through cross breading and grafting, in the past. With mixed results. An important side note. We owe all of civilization to agriculture, it is the parent of our great cultures. Prior to the advent of farming, we were "Hunter gatherers" life was much harder and we could only support small clans. Our cultures could not develop much beyond "the family unit", we owe agriculture much. I guess that is why it is still such an important subject, hotly debated, and passionately investigated by many scientific disciplines.
I love science, so, I love truth. I'm here to publicly proclaim my erroneous beliefs and position on the subject of GMO's. Through my investigations I have found they are safe. The real truth is they are better and safer than any other method we have used in our past to initiate changes to our food sources. Yes, this is a complete reversal on my prior position. I was in error. The only way I could be wrong in this, is not to correct my mistakes. I'm grateful for what I have learned. Don't let people just feed you information, get out there, investigate for yourself, use your wonderful mind. Above all do not simply believe lies. Keep Seeking, Keep Wondering, Keep Learning.Keep Investigating. We as a culture can do this, it will take all of us. And we have Agriculture to thank for this opportunity.

[michaelcaraway]

For those that just don not understand, humans have been genetically modifying organisms since the advent of farming. The origins of almost every edible plant look nothing like the foods we eat today and haven't for centuries. Although we have not until recently used active genetic modification we have used genetic selection for centuries.